JOINT SESSIONRDA/WDS IG Cost Recovery Models

IG Domain RepositoriesRDA P6, Paris, 23-09-2015

2

15.30 - 16.00       presentation of survey results (20 min) and questions (10 min)

16.00 - 16.40       break-out groups: SWOT analysis of the different funding models

16.40 - 17.00       plenary wrap-up

Session programme

3

Remit from the case statement:

A contribution to strategic thinking on cost recovery by conducting research to understand current and possible cost recovery strategies for data centres

Report providing conclusions and recommendations about the appropriateness of different cost recovery models to different situations and the potential of data publication initiatives fitting into a cost recovery strategy

The IG Cost Recovery objectives and deliverable

4

Why is this work important?

Long-term sustainability of data repositories is under threat in US and Europe “Stakeholder and data volumes are growing rapidly and funding not following.”

Many repositories are seeking alternative models for cost recovery

They would like to know about each other’s efforts

Motivation of the IG Cost Recovery

5What have we done?

Survey among digital repositories:

22 repositories interviewed done by volunteers over phone/Skype Each interview took at least 1 hour, following a script

6Quantitative Survey Results

7Quantitative Survey Results

8Quantitative Survey Results

9Quantitative survey results

Research Project Funder

Research Performing

Organisation

Researcher / PI / Project

1. Structural (central contract)2. Hosting Support (indirect or direct support through institutional hosting)3. Annual Contract (from depositing institution)4. Data Deposit Fee (may be paid by researcher, RPO or publisher; may originate with funder)5. Access Charge (for the data or for value-adding services)6. R&D Projects (to develop infrastructure or value-adding services)7. Private Contracting (services to parties other than core funder)

Data Centre / Archive

(Structural) Infrastructure

Funder

Private Contracting

11Income streams in absolute numbers of repositories

12Term of funding for the main income stream (in %)

13Quantitative Survey Results

14

Exploring alternative revenue streams

yes no maybe0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

15

Compatibility with the Open Access principle

16Funding options under consideration

Sponsorships Contracts for specific services offered (hosting,

archiving, curation) Expanding the number of affiliated institutions Deposit fees Funders making more money available (given priority

for data) Specific services for the commercial sector

(mentioned by one) More services for national memory institutes

17

Typology of funding models

Largely structurally funded Reliant on data access charges Exploring data deposit fees Substantial diversification Propped up by project funding Supported by host institution

18

Finalising the draft survey report on the basis of the input at RDA P6

Circulating the draft survey report among key stakeholders to get further input

Presenting the final conclusions and recommendations at RDA P7

Next steps

19

Four broad funding models:1. Largely structurally funded (including support by the host

institution)

2. Reliant on data access charges

3. Exploring data deposit fees

4. Substantial diversification (including project funding)

What are the plans, hopes and fears for the future (SWOT) if we look as these different funding models?

Breakout groups: SWOT analysis

20

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

1

21

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

2

22

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

3

23

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

4